Talk:Feminism/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Feminism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Various

Dudes there is nothing about the history of non western culture and women in them. seriously, to consider 'feminism' having 'started' only after a book was written about it, to call that a 'work' , is kind of you know, there are other ways to look at it. thats like saying anti-racism didnt exist before uncle toms cabin was written, or some other book.

Please feel free to add any information that you come across about the history of feminism before the topic was initially recorded, dude. Arcuras 13:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, this is a trend that it is my personal (paid) responsibility to nip in the bud. In your case, on Meta-Wikipedia, you've written several things that have led me to conclude that you are incapable of understanding our neutrality policy. I (wrongly) assumed that you were still working on the feminism article, and that you were taking your stated views seriously. So I told you to get lost; I'll reconsider that. But I do reserve the right to tell people to get lost, if necessary--if I am convinced that they are unequivocally a burden to the project. I've done so once before. (That person has come back and has become a relatively productive member, I'm happy to say.) I am one of two people who are paid to work on this project, which I started, and I'm the closest thing there is to an administrator for the project. I imagine you might not have known all this, which is fine. Now you do.

So the Wikipedia is run by a fascist and is not a community project as advertised? I do not wish to contribute to it then. Please clarify your EXACT position. And I'd appreciate it if others did too since, if you'll forgive me, I've grown skeptical of your claims.

The policy, by the way, is not that articles are to be "balanced." It is that they are to be neutral. This generally implies what you might consider to be balance; but surely it doesn't always. In cases where you have a minority view, for instance, an article that compares competing views might not spend as much time on your view; it might nonetheless be perfectly neutral, but it won't be balanced (in the sense of giving "equal time" to the other side; the other, minority side will have its own article). In the case of an article about feminism, while the article should not in any place imply that feminism is correct or incorrect (that would be biased, according to our definition of "bias"), it should spend the bulk of its space presenting (not asserting) the feminist point of view and information about the feminist movement. This means, among other things, that you shouldn't expect the article to represent the masculist point of view just as much as it does the feminist one; the article's subject is, after all, feminism. --LMS

Sounds good. I assume the article on Nazism is similarly largely from the point of view of Nazis then? So much for the NPOV. Thanks for your clairifcation. David Byron

Is Godwins law operating here? --KA

I'm done talking to you, David. --LMS

I doubt that having met your type before. Anyway if you reply again try to keep the Summary the same as I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Hooray for holiday spirit!

Peace on earth, good will to men (and women).

--TheCunctator

WOW! Entry is looking very good as of end of December 2001. I am very impressed! (And surprised. :-) ) Kudos to all who've been working on it.

Is there a reason for being radical feminism redirected to feminism, and then links in the article to radical feminism? Quite confusing. I guess links in the article should be removed, or redirect.User:szopen

Perhaps the article should have something on how the washing machine, refrigerator, sewing machine, and indoor plumbing have freed women from great amounts of labour (example: who carries water anymore?) --User:Juuitchan

My sense is that these innovations have never been part of the feminist project and indeed have been critiqued by some feminists. The real question is NOT how such machines saved "women" from great amounts of labor -- the real questions (for feminism, I mean) are: 1) WHY were women condemned to wash clothing, sew, and cook before these innovations (in other words, why is it that "women" were freed from such chores, rather than "people")? 2) did this really lead to liberation (this is of course what Freidan criticizes), and 3) to what extent does the production or operation of such machines still depend on the labor of women (in other words, women working in a factory to produce a labor saving device that will help a rich woman or woman working as a lawyer or doctor; or women working as maids using such machines, etc.) This third question is a purely empirical question and may be the least interesting of the three, and perhaps not relevant to this particular set of issues, although in other areas it is very important Slrubenstein

I haven't modified anything, but I would like to query the statement that "As most abolishionists were white, so most feminists have been male." (6th paragraph from start). Either this is incorrect, or if not, it deserves some elaboration as it is quite counter-intuitive. This was possibly the case in the very earliest days (ie. 19th century) but surely that is no longer the case...?

I do not believe that even in the 19th century the abovce was correct. On another note, can someone explain why in the list of early feminists George Sand comes before Mary Wollstonecraft? Can someone with more knowledge than me go over the chronology here? Slrubenstein

Off-topic, but for anyone wishing to read a tremendously funny critique of modern consumerism disguised as feminism, see this onion article. Tuf-Kat

This was found on the page Lavender menace. The author didn't leave his/her name:

The feminist article that preceeds this page is horribly written and judgmental towards the women that began the feminist movement. It is full of hasty generalizations toward organizations and particular sects of feminism. This is disturbing, untrue and unfortunate that it is found under this text proclaiming to be like and encyclopedia.

I think the author of this page on feminism needs to think more about the purposes of an encyclopedia. To my mind, it is not to spit tacks about a given subject, but to sum up what the varying viewpoints are about the topic, and what you can fairly say is fact. This is such a thinly-disguised piece of anti-feminist advocacy that it's worthless as anything but diatribe. I don't expect to see an article written by Catherine MacKinnon or Phyllis Schlafly, but by someone who is doing their best to sum up the historical debate itself, not "why the other guy is dead wrong." Keep that in Ms. or the The National Review where they belong.

I'm far from an expert on this subject, but I can't help noticing that Mary Wollstonecraft and Virginia Woolf are both listed as being in the "first wave" (in the list at the bottom of the page) depite living more than a hundred years apart, while George Sand, who lived in between them, is an "early poineer". Can anybody fix this (there might be other problems with the list as well, I don't know). --Camembert

I think a section on "Impact on the economy" belongs under "impact", but I'm not up to writing it this morning. Also, I'm considering expanding "impact on morals" to include a discussion of the changing attitudes towards rape--in particular, that neither a woman's choice of clothing nor her marital status is now considered a defense against a charge of rape. Vicki Rosenzweig 12:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This first attempt at editing Wikipedia has been a very enriching experience. At first, almost instantaneously, some aggressive moralizer ;-) came in with a rather weak argument, I thought. But I still had more "ammo" so I wasn't worried. Yet it seemed like all my gems were being encased in smokey quartz. Every clear statement of fact was prefaced with this "he said/she said" kind of thing. **OK, now things are going a little too far, better do some research.** Anyway, things started to get a little clearer after I read the FAQ. What really got to me, though, was a comment Vicki Rosenzweig made in the change history: "still trying for NPOV." Many people make that comment. What that means is that Vicki isn't mad at me, she isn't taking any of this personally, she just keeps on working for the common good. High Five. : Dbabbitt 08:30, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

There is surely much more to be said about the impact of f on hetrosexual relationships that the bizzarre one sentence that is there?212.112.96.46 05:37, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Be bold, if you know about it, add it. Dysprosia 05:38, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Shouldent most of this article be moved to an aricle say Feminism in the United States seem as that is what most of it seems to be about G-Man 14:08, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've de-westernised the article a lot by adding some caveats and changing emphasis. Also changed order of sections and removed one of them for the same purpose. I think the Americanism is nicely seperated now in its own section. The article isn't very long or complex, so the American history now provides an example to give the article weight. I don't think there is a need for it to be a seperate article now : ChrisG 02:46, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are problems with accuracy of fact in the "statistics" section. The assertion that women own only 1% of the world's wealth appears to me to be unsupportable. In the USA, some statistics have shown women own more than 50% of the wealth.

The current statistics seem more like ideology than encyclopaedic text.

Humanist

I've marked the section disputed. The population figure is definitely wrong, so I don't trust any of the others. —Ashley Y 20:05, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

I believe the representation in parliament figure is correct, however. Dysprosia 22:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you have a reference, you should definitely put it in. I'm reminded a bit of this actually. —Ashley Y 18:29, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Done. The figures I have the reference for are a bit old, but they should still do. Dysprosia 23:52, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I updated the parliamentary figures, and put in a reliable reference. NuclearWinner 06:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The bell hooks link didn't work when I tried it.

Humanist

The population statistics may be correct. Males make up 105 to 100 female births, but women live up to 7 years longer than men, on average.

They're not correct: in particular, females are a slight minority of humanity. Follow the link if you don't believe me. —Ashley Y 03:46, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Is this a protected page? I wanted to add a link to all-women bands under related topics. Can somebody with access please do so? heidimo 03:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was only protected because of persistent vandalism by an anonymous user. I think it can be unprotected now, eh? --MIRV (talk) 03:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's hoping it's safe to do so. heidimo 04:22, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) P.S. thanks for adding the link!

In Religion section Catholic christianity should be mentioned. Its as West as Protestant and maybe more than Islam.

*some limited advances have been made in some non-Western countries; - IMO something with limited effects or influence would be better, some effects may be advances only from feminist POV. Especialy in mentioned non-Western countries opinions od that effects may be different.

Could someone please put in something explaining what 'first wave', 'second wave' etc is? Also on the List of Feminists, which is broken out somewhat confusingly. It may be apparent to US folks, but not to the rest of us. Thanks! Mark Richards 18:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's mention of it in the History section, but once I have some free time I'll try and expand/fill it out. I don't understand what you find confusing about List of feminists - it's broken in section of feminist leaning - within feminism there are some different ideologies and so forth. Thanks Dysprosia 04:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can we link to the explanation where the terms 'first wave' and other ideologies etc appear? What I found confusing, was that I didn't know what the terms meant, and so didn't understand how the list was organized. I may be the only one, but a brief paragraph at the head of the list explaining the categorisation might help? Thanks! Mark Richards 23:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can we get the phrase 'radical notion that women are people' in there somewhere without it sounding flipant? I think it's very compelling. Mark Richards 23:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about sexual harrasment against women in the criticisms section. It isn't too well polished, so could somebody please go over it? Thanks. =) --Johnleemk 08:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Some find that the prioritization of oppression and the universalization that Radical feminists believed was too generic and that women in other countries would never experience the same experience of being "woman" than women in Western countries did, and likewise may find race instead of gender to be the root oppression that they may face." I find this sentence hard to parse, let alone understand. 68.121.180.16 13:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A couple NPOV issues from a libertarian individualist: In the 'criticisms of Feminism' section, about male suicide: "Note that since the middle of seventies, the ratio has worsened" meaning that males have become even more likely to suicide than females. But is this "worsened" in a NPOV? What do you want, more females to commit suicide to close the gap? If males are more likely to commit suicide (per male capita) now than before, then say that. The change in male suicide statistics in this article are using female suicide statistics as their base, and not male earlier male suicide statistics.

Change% = Male Suicides 2004 / Male Suicides 1975 vs. Change% = Male Suicides 2004 / Female Suicides 2004 - Male Suicides 1975 / Female Suicides 1975

From "Worldwide Statistics"

Despite advances made by women toward equality in the West, there is still a very long way to go, according to those who provide the following statistics:

Feminist bias in this sentence. Who made the "advances"? Women? Which women? Women that weren't born yet? Women that weren't feminist activists? If my friend lived on a deserted island for all her life and just moved here, did she make advances towards equality in the West?

How about: "Despite advances made by the West towards equality for women?"

It still reeks of collectivism, but at least it is based on a more or less natural community instead of an artificial construct.

Women are under-represented in all of the world's legislative bodies. As of 1985, Finland had the largest percentage of women in national legislature at approximately 32 percent (P. Norris, Women's Legislative Participation in Western Europe, West European Politics). Currently, Sweden has the highest number of women at 42 percent. The United States has just 11 percent. The world average is just 9 percent.

This one made me giggle. Legislatures, by definition, represent. The only women who are under-represented by their legislature are the ones who cannot vote. If my friend Jane is not represented by a legislature by not being a member of it, then she is just as under-represented as I (a male) am if I am also not a member of that legislature, all else (voting rights) being equal.

Worldwide, women on average earn 30 percent less than men, even when doing the same jobs.

There are two issues here. Women on average (finally! average) earn 30 percent less than men. Fine. But when they do the same jobs they don't earn 30 percent less than men. Sometimes they earn more, moreoften they earn less, mostly they earn the same. But the average they earn doing the same job is not 30 percent less than men. I would wager the actual percentage in that case is somewhere between 1% and 29%.

Anyway, something to chew on.

--M4-10 07:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

That last one does strike me as rather sloppy, especially considering that it contradicts one of the previous statistics, namely that women earn 10% of the world's income - surely that would mean that women, on average and worldwide, earn 90% less than men?

Also, the implication that the figure is 30% regardless of whether the jobs being performed are the same is highly suspect, I would expect that the figures are entirely different in the two cases, being closer to zero in the case that the jobs are the same. This one definitely needs clarification, and it may also be useful to include a statistic for the difference in the West (not just worldwide, for the West the difference would likely be very close to zero for any reasonable definition of the "same job").

StuartH 13:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Where feminism lost me: THE FRIGGIN SEXES ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE EQUAL!!!!!!!!

There will always be areas in which men or women excel, and we just have to learn to deal with it. It is unrealistic to expect that two genders with so many differences can ever be on equal footing in all aspects of life. So quit whining, find your niche, and be happy, dammit.

One thing is certainly true—not all wikipedia contributors are equal. Postdlf 20:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

War poster

Is this particular war poster in the heading appropriate? While it evokes the idea of taking one's destiny into one's own hands, like feminism, in surface, it was painted by J. Howard Miller (a man I beleive; although I cannot find much information of him) for a campaign ran by men to have women do the "dirty" job of men and send ammunition to men and male armies, to replace the men at the manufactures while they went to do something "more important" (war) with the intent of sending them back to their homes after the war. Since it does, after all, represents, for some, partly feminism and the beginning of some women getting the taste for self-sufficience from a carreer of their own, could we not push the said poster a little down the list? And maybe someday finding a pic for the heading that represents more the essence of the movement? I look forward to hear your opinions. --Liberlogos 04:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That sure is a tough decision: what image best sums up feminism? I chose the poster, rather arbitrarily, because (a) many (not all) feminists identify with it, and (b) it's inoffensive to most people. But it does have all the negatives you mention. So what's a good lead pic? Gloria Steinem speaking to a crowd? Women burning bras? Any ideas? Quadell (talk) 02:05, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

The critical points are good. But since feminism is controversial, it is likely that most accompanying posters will invite some controvery. I don't think this is a bad thing, as long as it is recognized. Middle-class women entering the workforce is an important moment for feminists (and of course, men can be feminists too, so the fact that a man may have designed the poster may not invalidate it) -- remember, women have always worked, and for wages too. But perhaps we can also find a public domain poster for the suffragette movement and the pro-choice movement? Slrubenstein

This disscussion is getting very interesting: thank you for your contributions. Of course a man can be feminist (I'm a man). About possible alternatives, the suffragette movement is of course quite pertinent. The bras burning (something that does not gather all feminists, especially now) or a pro-choice symbol (does not gather all feminists either and it is more a movement that has been associated with feminism) is not a good idea; I'd prefer the War poster to that. I hope that, when women and men who fought for feminism look back at the movement's great achievements, the first thing that pops in their mind isn't: "Well, we got to burn a lot of apparel!" ...Of course, it had to be done so women could reappropriate the bras as their own, like many other things that initially had to be rejected to be later chosen, sometimes to be even empowering, rather than being something imposed. I'd like to hear of more women (sorry, I don't know your gender Slrubenstein), but there seems to sadly not be that many on Wikipedia. --Liberlogos 18:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I modified the following:

Some males, as well as females, find that some feminists are effectively preaching hate against males or claiming male inferiority - if the words "male" and "female" would be replaced by "black" and "white" respectively, some of their feminist writings would sound like racist propaganda.

and here's why:

While inarguably true, the sentence as it stands above seems to indicate a pov that sides with the critics; rather then presenting what the critics say, the author of the section puts it forward as if it were "our" view... thus the change. I think the sentence works now, although that section seems to need a bit of work for style, grammer and so on. Arcuras

Changed the first two paragraphs, for the following reasons:

First paragraph: The definition of feminism most often mentioned - and something that all (?) feminists agree about - seems to me theory / movement aimed at equality of the sexes. This belongs at the start and is more to the point than "women's rights, interests and issues". Changed "informed by" to "based on" because it seems to me a better description, but I could be wrong and I am not a native speaker of English. And "analyzing gender inequality" was repeated in a slightly different wording right at the beginning of the next paragraph.

Second paragraph: "social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" that was mentioned under "feminist political activists" is rendered redundant by the first sentence (see above). And it is certainly something that both feminist theorists and political activists advocate. However, feminists theorists (if they are not also activists) don't campaign.

Loikb 00:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The division between fem. theorists and activists misses out the fact that one could potentially be both. Dysprosia 06:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Rephrase it Feminist theory aims to understand the nature of inequality and focus on gender politics, power relations and sexuality. Feminist political activism ... ? 84.72.115.180 10:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement "The definition of feminism most often mentioned - and something that all (?) feminists agree about - seems to me theory / movement aimed at equality of the sexes" is way too narrow, as many feminists question the distinction between two sexes; they argue for something more radical than "equality." Slrubenstein

Um, who questions the distinction between the sexes in the physical sense, as opposed to "genders"? Also, "equality between the sexes" doesn't say anything about two sexes. I think including something about questioning the distinction would be good. But come on, women's "interests and issues"? Like the ones covered in mainstream women's magazines? And what do you mean by "more radical than equality"? Loikb 21:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Start with bel hooks, Feminist TheorySlrubenstein

And end with what? Could you provide a quote out of that book? Loikb 00:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, if I understand you correctly, you reverted the article to its original state because you think that my version fails to say that feminism is about something more radical than equality. I really don't understand, because the current introduction doesn't say anything about that, but instead about "women's rights, interests and issues", which could mean anything. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to actually address my questions. Loikb 16:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i did a google search: feminism definition.

the first 8 results:

n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women

1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief.

1. [n] the movement aimed at equal rights for women 2. [n] a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women

Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially. This is the core of all feminism theories

Copy of Wikipedia article: "Feminism is a social theory and political movement primarily informed ... "

"The true definition of a feminist is someone who follows the theory of equality of the sexes in politics, economics and social class, Walcott said.

1. The belief that women and men are, and have been, treated differently by our society, and that women have frequently and systematically been unable to participate fully in all social arenas and institutions. 2. A desire to change that situation. 3. That this gives a "new" point-of-view on society, when eliminating old assumptions about why things are the way they are, and looking at it from the perspective that women are not inferior and men are not "the norm."

The doctrine — and the political movement based on it — that women should have the same economic, social, and political rights as men.

So, 6 out of 8 definitions include the word equal or equality, and 1 of the others comes from Wikipedia. So I think my version is backed up sufficiently. Loikb 11:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Loikb 11:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Loikb 11:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The basis of my comment is not the web, but books and articles assigned in University (US, at least) courses on feminist theory. Many feminists argue that feminism is about questioning the very nature of sex and gender, and is meant to help men, not just women. Many feminists believe that patriarchy -- in which men seem to dominate women and have greater privilige than women, hurts men. But they go further than saying that equality would help men as well as women. They question the nature of equality, in that even if men and women have equal political and economic privilege or influence, they are still participating in a dehumanizing system feminism is well-positioned to critique. If this does not make sense to you I suggest you read hooks' very influencial book. It is but one example of this vast literature, and I suggest it only because it is relatively short and clear. I do not at all doubt that many feminists argue for equality. But many feminists argue against this. Please don't rely on google. When writing a web-based encyclopedia we need to do research outside of the web (otherwise, we just perpetuate a limited set of ideas). There really are still many ideas that are very important in feminsit circles that are not on the web, or not so easy to find on the web. Read hooks. I also suggest reading Judith Butler's The Psychic Life of Power for another feminist position. Slrubenstein

"Some find that because of feminism, males are beginning to be oppressed. While this view is rejected by many sociologists, those who make this claim often note that males die from suicide 4 times more frequently than females attempting suicide in the USA; rates climbed dramatically during the 1980s and early 1990s; 72% of all suicides are white males; slightly over half of all suicides are adult men, aged 25-65; critics conclude that the USA is becoming a country where males especially white males are severely oppressed."

I don't want to edit this myself, since I'm a pretty crappy writer but this is a horribly misleading paragraph. Women attempt suicide in far greater numbers than men. The only reason men's suicide rates are higher is becaues they tend to use more violent methods (which are more successful) and have more access to guns. Could somebody please fix that?

Input junkie 17:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)